|
Well, to respond to the OP before I jump into this wild discussion:
And let me first say that I really like this topic, and I'm very glad its been brought up, because it was the single biggest turning point in my life.
I became an atheist when I was 18 or 19, after being raised Catholic (church every sunday, holy days of obligation, and alter boy style). As a child you're kind of thrust into it and indoctrinated by your parents (albeit only one parent for me). Then its constantly surrounding you and reinforced. When I graduated high school I was 16, and I started going to community college and working 2 jobs. I really didn't have time for church anymore. But I knew that God and I had a special agreement, and that he was okay with me not attending church on the grounds that I was a good christian and the circumstances were against me. There was multiple factors that influenced me to start questioning. I had a rampant atheist geology teacher whom I really respected, I was reading the book "Stranger in a Strange Land", and I was having a hard time dealing with the concept of my best friend (who I felt was a greater person than most christians I know) was going to hell.
The most heavy hitting was my friend's apparent destination. I went to christian school and had many christian friends, and I went to public school where I met many atheist friends. All these friends really had much in common when it came to sinning, but the christian side was just more judgmental when it came to things like pre-marital sex. My friend and I were the absolute case of "good christian boys", but I believed and he didn't. I had always liked separating the idea of morals and ethics as morals are derived from a divine being and ethics being derived from worldly observations. I always felt first and foremost I was an ethical person who's actions were in line with morals. The same for my friend. But yet he was going to hell, and many of the so-called christian sinning people were going to heaven. That didn't sit well with me. But what also didn't sit well with me would be that the christian sinners are also going to hell because they're hypocrites. Also, what about the crazy guys that hang out at colleges with signs that say "God hates Fags, Jews, Blacks, etc."? Is that who God wants in heaven? Either way Heaven will either be incredibly inclusive, or exclusive. I was not okay with this.
I had searched and searched for answers in having history come to the aide of the bible, and it kept falling short. Many historians neglect the beginning portions of the bible under the idea that there was no civilization and that likely writing didn't exist among the early Jews, so stories were mostly word of mouth (which explains the crazy plot of the early old testament). But in my search for evidence, it kept falling short and I kept coming to a realization that maybe this isn't real. And while struggling to be able to admit that maybe I was becoming an atheist, I remember feeling so guilty for thinking such horrible thoughts. It wasn't until I said it out loud to a friend that I felt rid of all that guilt, and just felt free.
Now I'm an incredibly happy person. I'm not scared for others, feeling guilty, or judgmental. It excites me that the world is an incredibly random assortment of events that happened by pure chance. And to be able to just accept that I honestly do not know what is beyond me, or the cause of much of what happens in the universe. I'm fine with not having a definition of how the world was created, not knowing if I'm going to have consciousness when I die. I'm just happy that I'm alive and I'm going to make the most of it.
I do have religion to thank for making me the huge skeptic that I am today. If I could be brainwashed into believing that, there's capacity for me to be brainwashed on other subjects, and I would like to prevent that at all costs.
|
I'm go at this from a different angle.
Being an atheist, I do think the morality argument has some merit.
If I were the dictator of the earth, I may not care about murdering millions of people just to get my way (but of course, the environment and circumstances will probably have a lot to do with it). But if you did want me to stop, then I don't think you are gonna be able to give me a rational argument. If you met with Stalin after 1945, how would you give him a 'rational' argument to stop doing what's he's doing? You can't argue that being dictator leads to negative consequences for him personally, because in the end his actions went unpunished.
But if you were able to lie to him and get him to believe in a religion that forces him to do good things, then he might stop.
So the point is, having some people act irrationally CAN actually be good for everyone.
|
I grew up in a catholic environment. As a kid, I always thought of prayer more like meditation. I mean it had to be, since the god I tried talking to did not reply to me. I didn't really think about it too much, since religion itself wasn't too present apart from the occasional church visit. About 11 years ago, I realized that people actually try to talk to god. I can't remember my exact thoughts, but I remember testing if talking to god did something by praying for random stuff and seeing if something happened. It was at that point that I became a cynical asshole and an atheist.
Everything I have learned since just makes a personal god look more and more absurd. In theory I have no problems with a deistic god that doesn't intervene in the universe, but what's the point. That god has as much to do with christianity as christmas trees and easter bunnies.
|
I prefer to be recognised as ignostic to be sensible.
|
On April 23 2013 04:45 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:40 Tobberoth wrote:On April 23 2013 04:37 trias_e wrote:
My point is that you can't replace God with rationality and think we're all set. There are some things that religion/belief in God gave us that can't be replaced with science: Values, meaning, purpose, morality. I recommend reading some Sartre if you want to get into where having no God leaves us in these areas. Religion/belief in god has nothing to do with any of those things. Values/morality are part of being a social community, atheist have them too and you do not need to derive them from anything having to do with God/religion. Meaning and purpose? That's subjective, and I feel sad for people who's meaning in life is to live for a deity which gives them no feedback. Your purpose in life can be to be happy, and keep people you love happy. No relation to religion. If my morality comes from my society, what if my society is simply wrong? God can't be wrong (supposedly), which is why God is so comforting.
So moral absolutes exist unequivocally?
With every passing generation what the Christian God accepts on a moral basis seems to change.
Simply because a belief is comforting doesn't make it correct. In fact, this line of reasoning opens you up to the impression that the belief is nothing more than self-delusion.
|
I was never religious, but I went from atheist to spiritual in my puberty on account of music, literature, shattering experiences, reckless love and lots of psychedelic drugs (all of which I highly recommend).
I think we can only develop true, genuine belief from the inside out and organized religion is simply a cultist deception that in fact has nothing to do with spirituality (which is why, in general, the most devout people of any major faith happen to be turds in real life).
A sincere connection with the universe & your transcorporeal self, on the other hand, is extremely precious and was probably what all the enlightened historical figures wanted us to realize before they got raped and exploited by the religious mafia.
|
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
|
On April 23 2013 04:54 Kalingingsong wrote:
I'm go at this from a different angle.
Being an atheist, I do think the morality argument has some merit.
If I were the dictator of the earth, I may not care about murdering millions of people just to get my way (but of course, the environment and circumstances will probably have a lot to do with it). But if you did want me to stop, then I don't think you are gonna be able to give me a rational argument. If you met with Stalin after 1945, how would you give him a 'rational' argument to stop doing what's he's doing? You can't argue that being dictator leads to negative consequences for him personally, because in the end his actions went unpunished.
But if you were able to lie to him and get him to believe in a religion that forces him to do good things, then he might stop.
So the point is, having some people act irrationally CAN actually be good for everyone.
Yeah, there is time in human history where I can actually sort of agree with this, to a limited extent. I think religion (broadly defined here) was created (among other reasons) as a sort of early form of law enforcement or just a tool to keep society in line. As someone who studies the ancient world, I can say that it is a cruel and barbaric place. The modern concept of a state with laws and enforcement personnel to enforce said laws is a relatively new concept for humanity. What is a good stand in for that in the absence of real law enforcement? Religion. Invisible entities that see what you do, and can fuck your shit up if you do x or don't do y. I sort of get it. You need some way to keep society together in the absence of a real modern state.
The problem, especially now, is two fold. The first is the pragmatic one: It simply doesn't work that well. We see people from all religions out-right ignore some basic rules of their religion. Even the leaders of organized religions (presumably the most devout; cynically the non-believers who use religion for their own ends) are constantly doing things that just fly in the face of their religious "morals." The imaginary scary guys just aren't scary enough.
The second problem I think is more of a moral one, and therefore isn't such a clear cut answer. I'm just not convinced that brainwashing people that there are imaginary beings that see everything you do and will reward or punish you based on those actions is moral. If people are acting "morally" only out of the fear of being punished or in the hope of some reward, are they really being "moral?" I would argue they are not, but that is just an opinion.
|
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
sorry, I meant more in the line of, "there is one set of morals that will never change"
I worded my question wrong. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. To think that the entire set of morals is immutable (i.e. there is a God and his morals cannot be wrong) is different IMO. That's what a lot of Christianity subscribes to, and it's quite disturbing that this idea in itself hasn't changed despite societal morals (and Christian morals themselves) changing constantly.
As for self-delusion, I think it is a very bad thing to suspend rational thought. If we were to suspend rational thought for many of the things that religion tells us to, we would never be in today's society. The reason we are in the position we are today is greatly due to the Enlightenment and the proliferation of rational thought. Until then, humanity had long stagnated socially and technologically.
|
On April 23 2013 03:47 farvacola wrote:
Sort of, I consider myself a radical, absurd Christian; not because I think Jesus was literally the son of God, but because I think all belief, even in science or rationality, is inherently irrational to a degree, and that sometimes, "playing nonsense" makes the most of sense of all. By being open to the possibility of their being some sort of God, some might even say through pretending, I've found I've gotten to know a lot more people far more intimately, and it is through my experience with others that my belief is strengthened. Call it a "spiritual placebo" effect. I use the label "Christian" because my family is Christian, and it is through the Christian lens that I've come to know religiosity; my beliefs would most certainly not be welcome amongst the vast majority of Christians though.
These sorts of topics are a personal passion of mine, and I realize that a lot of it sounds like bullshit. That's ok though, everything is always merely a work in progress.
From what I've read in here, it seems you and I are similar on what topics we've read and have analyzed in order to fashion what we believe. And I find it funny because what you're saying is similar to what my girlfriend says when we talk about this topic (her favorite author is Malcom Gladwell). She thinks that we really neglect the amount of random events that happen in our lives to shape our being. But there could be something to those events, and that her embracing that and through what she calls her "spirituality", like a mind-body relationship, she's able to connect with people on deeper levels. Although she doesn't call herself a christian, she sees herself as being a very spiritual being.
She suggests that she feels a connection between her body and mind and that this in its essence is spirituality. I disagree. I do not know what causes or what that feeling is between my body and mind, albeit its there, but I cannot define what it is, or what causes it. I'm perfectly fine with not having a definition for the unknown and just accepting that I don't know why it's this way. I may never know, and even if I did know, it could be completely wrong. But just to be okay with not knowing is something our culture neglects. We encourage spirituality as a term to describe what we cannot understand. An example of this that we hear frequently is with genetics. How many times have you heard "oh you're not bald because that gene skips a generation." This is not how genetics works if you've ever been in 8th grade biology. Most people understand the idea of punnet squares, yet they suggest its a generation-skipping gene. Easy explanations overcome repeated trials of tests which show the contrary, that the most likely scenario behind genetics that we know so far is Gregor Mendel's theory. It's a juvenile comparison, but I think its pretty accurate in showing how we will neglect difficult answers for simpler ones, or just the simple idea of not-knowing in general.
Neither idea is inherently better than the other. And for all I know, if I accepted the idea of mind-body spirituality, I may be able to connect with other people on a higher level but the inner skeptic in me just can't do it.
|
On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
|
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
No one says that there's a need to eradicate religion. It will sort itself out over time, possibly. It is not a bad thing to be self-delusional if you can't maintain your act otherwise, I agree, some people just have to be guided or lack necessary education and willpower to set goals and be responsible. Religion is often a good instrument for treating relapsed alcoholics and drug addicts, since it can be very powerful in a proper context and is relatively easy to grasp at a basic level.
|
People around me weren't religious and there's no religion in schools here (as it should be). We were told the biblical tales since Christmas/Easter is celebrated here (more in a "meet your family and chill out" way), but that's all it was, stories. I realized that the existence of god(s) doesn't make sense around the time I found out that baby Jesus doesn't bring the Christmas presents.
|
On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
|
On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
|
On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
I don't know why it's a moral absolute but if I had to guess, if murder was acceptable, I don't think humanity would have lasted long. Can you think of a society in human history where it was okay for someone to murder someone for no reason whatsoever? Can you imagine a society like that lasting long?
What happens to people who actually believe it is okay to murder? In almost every society in existence they are punished in some way.
Can you think of a situation where it is okay to rape someone? Another moral absolute.
e: for clarity, I'm talking about long long ago.
Obviously modern societies of the last few millenia have accepted murder as morally wrong. That's a common agreement. Is it absolute? Probably as close as you can get. For all intents and purposes it is absolute.
This question is kinda hard because it's hard to pinpoint exactly why it came about. There is most likely a biological basis behind it. If you think about it this way, psychopaths are naturally selected against. Humans are social creatures; murder reduces the chances of a social group surviving. Thus an inherent basis against murder is likely to be biological at its core IMO.
|
On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes.
But you should belief that there are some.
Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
|
On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable?
murder?
|
On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
The inquisition was basically murder and torture. To them it was morally acceptable. There also have been several instances of genocide throughout the ages.
What it comes down to is that there appears to be a way humans can manage to not identify others as humans and therefore making the systematic slaughtering of those seem just. It stems from tribalism. Of course it looks like an atrocity from our perspective, but to the people conducting the genocide, their behavior is morally acceptable.
On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote:On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing. That statement is itself an absolute, though. If there are no moral absolutes: when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
As for rape: Deuteronomy 22:28–29
|
On April 23 2013 05:44 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 05:41 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:34 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:22 HardlyNever wrote:On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote:
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute? try murder for one. Why? Probably natural selection on that one. I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related? I don't know why it's a moral absolute but if I had to guess, if murder was acceptable, I don't think humanity would have lasted long. Can you think of a society in human history where it was okay for someone to murder someone for no reason whatsoever? Can you imagine a society like that lasting long? What happens to people who actually believe it is okay to murder? In almost every society in existence they are punished in some way. Can you think of a situation where it is okay to rape someone? Another moral absolute.
Well that really depends on how you define murder. You seem to be equating murder = everyone is ready and willing to kill everyone else. And you can't honestly believe that all human societies have universally, consistently, and successfully punished all murderers. I would consider some of the better Roman emperors to be murders. Stalin was definitely a murderer. Seemed to help his career.
Now let me be clear, I'm not saying I think it is ok to murder people. However, the natural selection argument (as a source of moral guidence) doesn't seem to hold up very well here (again, depending on how you define murder). I think quite a number of people have been successful because of murder, much less despite it.
And for natural selection to be a factor, you'd have to show that people who murder have a reduced chance to pass their genes on to another generation (i.e. procreate), as opposed to those who don't murder. I think, unfortunately, the opposite will often be found to be true (in human history).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
